Charles Anthony

The problem with the Opening Post is that it has more than one issue of debate: 1) "It is not the fighting men and women who must accept moral responsibility for their actions." yadda yadda yadda 2) "arguement as to why we are fighting in Afganistan and forget about the stupid fake videos of Osama." yadda yadda yadda to name a few. I have opinions on them but this thread can only continue to go all over the place and lose focus.

No more than I fear my own government. If you do not want the banks to exert power over you, do not use them. No. This discussion is like you telling me that the sky is falling and that the "government" has to catch it. No, I do not think competition is a sin. I do not think that a government should dictate who owns what. No. I would not feel more threatened than I do now -- which is not much. You just want a "government" that controls everything. I do not trust government bureaucrats to do anything reliable.

Knowledge is free and it is not lost. If a Canadian manufacturer costs more to produce the same product, I would rather buy a cheaper import. I do not feel that I owe the Canadian manufacturer a job any more than I owe the Chinese manufacturer a job. LaRouche is an autarkist who believes in restricting trade. Do you believe Canada should do the same? Do you believe in free international trade?

Are you kidding?? Again, you have things all mixed up! The Bank of Canada is far better than The Fed for controlling inflation. This is ridiculous! It is hard to discuss banking in Canada with people who do not know how central banking works. You know why there are no books on the Bank of Canada? because the policy at the bank of Canada is clear (control inflation) and they do not waver like The Fed does. Why would you write a book with only two words? I actually agree with you (on principle; in the same way that I object to taxation) that the government should not have that control. However, I do not think that your fear of Builderbergs or CFR (whatever that is?!?) is warranted in Canada. It is to everybody's advantage in Canada to have minimal inflation. That is it! You send me on a wild-goose chase: - you referred to a 40 minute video - I watched your 40 minute video - the video did NOT support your argument (although it was a good video) - you said your reference to the video was ONLY to support the gold standard - after I ask you to defend the inherent instability of the gold standard - you now say you do not support the gold standard Actually, yes, you do pretend to completely understand it. I do not care. Your argument is like saying Bill Gates controls the type of computer operating systems that are most popular. or Elvis Presley (or Michael Jackson) controls the standard by which we judge good Rock And Roll (Or Pop) music. or The teachers' unions control how much of our youth is wasted staring at blackboards and taking things for granted and becoming submissive fools. or The person walking down the street and buying a poutine from the chip-wagon controls the livelihood of the fry-guy. Big deal! Rich people do rich things and that includes sponsoring research. Of course they have biases and they want to make more money. Nobody owes you a cure. Why? If somebody wants to deposit their money in a fractional reserve bank, why not let them? By the way, did you get that from the Von Mises Institute, by any chance?

I agree with that and I think it should be a formal rule throughout the forum. I hate wild goose-chases. If a counter-argument does not contain a brief quote or summary, I am tired of surfing through links or watching long-winded videos! Actually, the Bank of Canada has a very good track record recently for fighting inflation -- without the help of other countries -- and it is a fiat currency. [i am not saying I support either one but it counters your paranoia.] How is that possible? Then YOU have to answer: why do ordinary people use private banks??? Your are still getting things mixed up. The central bank issues money which is backed by nothing. Correct. The central bank truly can issue as much or as little as it wants. Correct. The commercial banks lend us more money than they actually have in reserves. Correct. However, the law places limits on how much commercial banks can lend beyond their reserves. Therefore, the commercial banks can not keep lending out money forever. They are limited by deposits from both us and the central bank. The ultimate solution is: If you do not trust the commercial banks, do not use them. If you do not trust the Canadian currency, do not use it. I realize that there are not many alternate choices but such is life. You can not avoid taxation either. Central banking is an alternate form of taxation. If you believe taxation is right, it makes no sense to argue central banking is wrong. If you believe governments should redistribute wealth, it makes no sense to argue central banking is wrong. If you believe governments should stabilize economies, central banking is actually the best way to do it. Furthermore, central banking AND fiat currency is a good combination to maintain such power. [i still do not support either, but that is neither here nor there at this point.] PNoob, since you support currency backed 100% by gold like me, I have a question for you: Imagine a private Canadian miner discovers a brand new gold mine somewhere else in the world and brings his new wealth back to Canada. The private miner is now a multi-billionaire. Now back in Canada, he starts buying everything he needs to live and makes investments in Canada. The Canadian gold-backed currency money supply is now doubled and he get inflation throughout Canada. Should the Canadian government intervene to stabilize the economy? If so, what should the government do? I think the "government" should leave the economy alone and let the chips fall as they may. What about you?

A sober second thought. from Wooo Hooo!, Dems win It is not a conspiracy but rather fact: our money is backed by nothing and is created/destroyed by typing into a computer. Just like electronic voting, it can be easily fudged.

Why???

I disagree. I think he is a bad hockey commentator. We easily forget when his sound-bite predictions are wrong. The only times that he provides (h)in(d)sight is when he talks about the past with his cued-up videos. Those who make disparaging racist remarks should expect to be treated with disrespect.

Don Cherry made desparaging remarks towards French Canadian hockey players. He deserved to be booed.

Language is like music. If all that you can hear is Country or Western, you eventually grow to like both. If all that you HAVE EVER heard in your lifetime is Country or Western, you will never know what you are missing. This reminds me of the "bilingual certificates" hulabaloo in elementary school and how we all need to be bilingual to get a job and yadda yadda yadda. I took French for only one year in high school and dropped out because it was tasteless to share classes with other students who were only taking courses to get a better job. Our French teachers taught French with passion and I thought that bilingualism was insulting to them. I could not stay in that crowd. I think French is fabulous and I am immensely grateful that my parents transferred their passion of French to their children. The French language has an overwhelming wealth of literature from the past and the present. My father is a Baudelairien collector and I am named after that foul poet. Having said that, I see no reason why a government should be enforcing any language. In the United States, they do not even have an official language. About 10 years ago, I heard of Zachary Richard for the first time in a Moncton pub. His French made my jaw drop. He was on his first poetry-book tour and candidly joked that he was nervous because he did not have his guitar to shield him from the audience. He identifies himself as originaire d'Acadie du Sud with pride. If people in Louisiana can speak French and preserve their culture in Louisiana without government help, anybody can.

You can do it by selecting to display results in POSTS as opposed to THREADS in the lower right corner of the search form. That way, it will display a list of individual posts which contain your search string. Result Type Show results as topics Show results as posts

DAngeL, I agree with most of what you write and I find your closing statements: to be most laudable. You should be proud of your accomplishments (however great or small they may be) so long as you are respecting your fellow man. I agree that we can do better but I would still rather leave that task to private markets and charity. I do not think it is right to force others to be charitable if they do not wish to do so. Also, I do not trust governments to redistribute wealth fairly. I firmly believe that pure international free trade -- without government corruption or influence -- would lead to less poverty worldwide. Market forces would even things out -- that includes rich countries losing jobs to third world countries as we are seeing. Charles, the effects of financing government purchases through taxation or borrowing have short run effects on currency, unemployment and so on. I won't deny that. In the long run, it doesn't matter.I am conceding defeat on this one because an economy's ability to afford taxation is a reflection of the state of the economy and its assets. Debtors will look at the state of the economy before lending anymore. You are not saying that a government can continuously borrow ad infinitum -- that is what I misunderstood. I think I finally understand your point -- correct me if I am still mistaken. [My cop-out excuse will be that I got confused by all of the different re-writes and edits of the actual fallacy. The opening post is not the same as what is found in post #13 and follow up. The actual wording of the fallacy appears in three different forms.]When I say the government may reach a limit in borrowing, that government will have also reached a limit in its ability to tax. I would like to expand on this further as it relates to the corollary: from post #13 which is indeed a common fallacy of right-wing-conservatives. [i hate using those political labels. This fallacy really does not fit well with either camp: right or left.] Public debt is an accounting phenomenon and not a real economic phenomenon. [Depreciation of physical assets comes to mind as an other accounting slight-of-hand.] When a government borrows NOW, the net real value is extracted from the present economy. The real value is balanced out by reshuffling the assets and the ability to borrow NOW elsewhere in the economy.

Uh.... I have short hair too. The closest stereotype you could make for me might be Combat Rock but not military. I would tend to believe that. I know two black families who left Halifax for that reason. I find that sooooooo outrageously hard to believe. I have to see that to believe it rather than rely on anecdotes. What do people there in Halifax or Fredericton have against the military?? I find it disturbing that the city authorities are thinking of closing the bars early as a solution. They need more security on the streets instead.

I disagree with these goals. The video to which you referred in post #98 does not recommend those goals either. You have things mixed up. That video was produced by the Von Mises Institute and it quotes Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. All I can say, PNoob, is that I encourage you to continue learning from the above references but they will never support your goals. I am not afraid of concentrations of wealth and I do not believe a government should use monetary policy to redistribute wealth. Furthermore, I do not trust a central bank to balance wealth in any way. I give up.

NEVER use Money Mart -- they suck your blood.As an aside, several years ago, I had a cheque book stolen and my cheques were forged. Some of the cheques were deposited in the same bank (to clarify: the forged cheques were deposited in the same BRANCH of the same bank from which my bank account was registered, i.e., they had my signature on file behind their back) and some were attempted to be deposited at a Money Mart. Only the Money Mart cared to ask for identification. At the end of the month, the bank lost its money because they were required to reimburse me -- but they did not care to find the crook. The Money Mart immediately called the police and the crook was apprehended and subsequently charged.

I watched your whole video -- all 42 minutes of it -- and I agree with most of it. It tells me nothing new but you have things confused when you attack private banks for just printing money. I will cut to the chase: What power do you want the government to have with respect to banking? why? Do you believe the government should tax individuals? Do you believe the government should regulate the economy? Do you believe the government should stabilize the economy? Do you believe the government should redistribute wealth? These questions are important because some people defend central/fiat/fractional/reserve banking for the same reasons the video opposes. Unless you can answer the above questions, I have no idea what you want and why you are attacking the Federal Reserve.

So.... this opens a debate of who should get welfare and who should not....

In my mind, this thread serves the purpose of showing how good the Constitution COULD have been for all Canadians.

Individual freedom. However, it is possible to have a coercive government without a central bank -- the way things were in the past. Similarly, it is possible to have a coercive government without a central library. With respect to corporations, governments attribute protection to corporate entities which do not exist for individuals -- that is not fair. Yes, the economy was less stable. I do not care. You have it backwards. Central banks issue fiat currency. A private bank would issue a currency backed by something real. What are you talking about?? Privately printed fiat currencies?? Please name one and explain why anybody would freely use it. Correct. I can not remember. Yes but I missed the one that covered privately printed fiat currencies. Do you mean excessive? If that is what you mean, you are seriously wrong to think that any agent has that much control. Furthermore, if they did have that much control, it would still be foolish for them to do that. You are confusing the power of monetary policy. The only monetary policies that can make a swing in the economy are extreme ones: inflationary flooding or deflationary restriction. Both of which are unstable and unpredictable.

Thanks for that. So, Levesque (along with Newfoundland and Manitoba at one point) was negotiating for compensation on all policies. From the sounds of it, they wanted a decentralization of the federal government -- what I would call a breath of fresh air -- or what others may call a sovereignty-association whatever.

Yes. Mind you, I have nothing to contribute other than questions -- and maybe snarky comments. Is that not what we have in the Constitution? What exactly did Levesque want in its stead? My guess is that most Quebeckers do not care about this episode. Many of them do not even know the meaning of their Je Me Souviens license plate.

On special request from The Greatest Crisis In Modern History -- Lyndon Larouche thread. I never said that. I will continue to address your "government printing money to pay debt" position but I am not interested in any F.E.M.A. concentration camps diversions. My attitude on banking is very simple because I am not interested in stealing from Peter to give to Paul. Despite submission to a coersive government: 1) I believe private banks should be allowed to issue any currency their own currency. reason: freedom 2) I believe that the government can issue its own currency. same reason: freedom 3) Governments should not require people to use any particular currency. surprise, surprise: freedom 4) Governments "printing" money as you put it to pay debts is irresponsible reason: paying off government debts that way does not add value to the economy, thus, it leads to inflation and redistribution of wealth. In that sense you are right but suppose the banks raised the interest to a point where the payments could not be made. You would lose your house.That is ridiculous. The banks are not in the real estate trading market. They are in the money market. I can not over-emphasize this: they make money from your interest payments. They do not want you to lose your house. When that happens, there is TOO much uncertainty. If that is your thinking, would you not expect banks to give out mortgages to everybody with the intention of re-possessing the houses soon after?? Every mortgage application should get accepted!! What does your conspiracy theory say to that?? This attitude is a severe problem: My example proved that NOBODY can regulate an economy. What does that ("private wealth becomes accessive") mean??

I never did say that. You are referring to your "Calling The Federal Reserve -- (All Western Democracies Operate This Way)" thread. I will continue to address your "government printing money to pay debt" position over in that thread. However, I will add that in that thread you started to discuss F.E.M.A. concentration camps -- which is frighteningly off-topic. At which point, I judged it to be futile to spend much more effort discussing the main topic.

That connection between minimum wage and poverty is unfounded.

The video is comical indeed and it made me do some research. I had no idea how much the negociations were a massive waste of time. However, I am genuinely confused about what was changed without consulting Levesque: http://www.nuitdeslongscouteaux.com/Are they not the same thing? From the Library of Parliament: footnote S'il vous plait, quelle est la difference entre une clause derogatoire et celle qui est non-obstant?